Ozon: list orders

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly labelRead-only', discloses the 30-day default, and explains that FBO and FBS are independent streams both returned by default. These are real behavioral traits beyond the schema. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or rate limits, but the output schema and parameter names soften those gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose, key returned fields, default period, stream behavior, and read-only nature are all conveyed efficiently. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly in most cases: default period, default fulfillment stream, and read-only safety. The main omission is pagination (how to use 'cursor' to page beyond 'limit'), but the schema plus output schema cover much of the remaining context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 40%, so the description needs to compensate. It does add meaning for 'date_from' (30-day default) and 'fulfillment_model' (FBO/FBS independent streams, both default), but it does not explain 'cursor' pagination, 'limit' semantics, or the 'connection_id' requirement beyond what the schema already says. Partial compensation, not full.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns Ozon postings for a period' and enumerates the returned fields (posting number, date, items, amount, status). It also distinguishes Ozon orders from Ozon products, stocks, and prices visible in sibling tools, and clarifies FBO/FBS are separate order streams.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool ('Returns Ozon postings for a period') and provides useful defaults, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use it. It doesn't mention that stock, price, or product queries would use other Ozon sibling tools, so usage guidance is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.